TAYAG vs YUSECO G.R. No. L-14043.

April 16, 1959

FACTS

1920’s, Maria Lim offered to Yuseco and his wife, defendant Rosario, for them to build a house on 2 lots
owned by Lim (Hacienda de San Lazaro). The Yusecos accepted the offer and built a dwelling house and
an annex for garage and servant quarters. To legalize, Lim and the Yusecos executed a contract of lease
covering them, to run for a period of 5 years, with a yearly rental of P120. Before death, Lim sold the 2
lots to her married daughter, Tayag. In 1946, the Tayags asked the Yusecos to remove their house, or
else pay them monthly rent. The latter refused. Because of this, the Tayags brought an action of ejection
for the restitution of the lots and the recovery of a monthly rental. Judgment was rendered in favor of the
Tayags. The defendants appealed. The court rendered judgment adjudicating to Tayag the possession of
the 2 lots, with right to appropriate the 2 buildings thereon upon payment to Yusecos of their value, and
providing that should the plaintiffs fail to pay within 90 days, the defendants shall have the right to
purchase said lots. The plaintiffs appealed. CA, finding the defendants as possessors in good faith,
affirmed the lower court. The plaintiffs appealed to SC. SC affirmed the decision of CA to remand the
case to lower court to require plaintiffs to make a choice: "whether they would purchase the buildings
erected on the lots, or allow the defendants to buy said lots.” Tayag’s choice: “NOT to sell the lot, but to
appropriate the building if its valuation is as it should be and is properly and fairly determined.” Trial court
ordered the next step to adduce evidence in connection with the value of the buildings. Since the
defendants will be the sellers, they have the burden of proving the value of the buildings, giving the
plaintiffs opportunity to rebut. Plaintiffs: 2 buildings cannot be more than P40,000. Defendants: chalet is
from P45,000 to P50,000; garage and dwelling house, from P5,000 to P6,000. Trial court fixed them at
P50,000. This is the order appealed from.

ISSUE

Whether or not a litigant who has made a choice to sell his property appeal the price amount fixed by the
court.

HELD

NO. If petitioners were allowed to change their mind, repudiate their choice made in court not to sell the
land but to buy the buildings, and then compel the owners of the houses, respondents herein, instead to
buy land, then what if respondent also claimed inability to pay the price of the land, claiming that it is also
a good and valid reason for not compelling them to make the purchase? How would this litigation end, if it
ever would end? Once a party, in conformity with a court decision, has made his choice, and has duly
informed the court of said choice, and is accordingly ordered to comply with the same by buying the
building erected on his land and pay the value thereof fixed by the courts, that duty is converted into a
money obligation which can be enforced by execution, regardless of the unwillingness and alleged
inability of the party concerned to pay the amount. As to the alleged absence in the order of execution for
the house owners to make the transfer of the houses, that is to be understood, that upon full payment of
the price, the respondents will execute the corresponding deed of transfer.